Guwahati Court April 1976 Judgments

Smt. Satyabati Goswami and Others Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax, Assam, ...

Court: Guwahati

M.C. PATHAK C.J. - The following questions of law have been referred under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") :"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment order passed against the six sons of Shri Kumudeswar Goswami as legal representatives of Shri Kumudeswar Goswami on the basis of the six separate returns filed by the six sons was valid ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the gifted properties belonged exclusively to Shri Kumudeswar Goswami being his separate property ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the gifts made by Shri Kumudeswar Goswami were assessable to gift-tax in the assessment year 196...

Smt. Satyabati Goswami and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax, Etc.

Court: Guwahati

M.C. Pathak, C.J.1. The following questions of law have been referred under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'): '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment order passed against the six sons of Shri Kumudeswar Goswami as legal representatives of Shri Kumudeswar Goswami on the basis of the six separate returns filed by the six sons was valid ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the gifted properties belonged exclusively to Shri Kumudeswar Goswami being his separate property ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the gifts made by Shri Kumudeswar Goswami were assessable to gift-tax in the assessment year 1960-61 ?' The facts of...

Saharaj Tea Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Guwahati

Pathak, C.J.1. By this application under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner has prayed for calling for a statement of the case from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati, on the following proposed questions of law : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case and in view of the respective cases put forward by the parties to the appeal and the findings recorded thereon, the Tribunal was justified in law in remanding the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax on the reasons and grounds given in the order passed on appeal ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the order of cancellation of protective assessment made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax on appeal ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the income derived from Seconee Tea Estate ...

Sundaram Mahadeo Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Guwahati

Pathak, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the following question of law has been referred. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in applying the provisions of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as introduced by Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1964 ?'2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows I The relevant assessment year relates to 1964-65. The assessee-filed its return of income on October 17, 1964, showing an income of Rs. 50,146. The Income-tax Officer, however, completed the assessment at an income of Rs. 1,01,380. In doing so, he made certain additions in various trading accounts both in head office and branch and also disallowed certain expenditures claimed by the assessee as business expenditures. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed certain reliefs and the total income was reduced to Rs. 86,801. On second appea...

Dhanbar Ali and ors. Vs. Haripada Saha

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1976CriLJ1924

1. This is a Criminal Reference under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code directed against an order dated 14-7-1973 passed by Shri B. K. Das, Magistrate. 1st Class in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code finally disposing of the case in favour of the First party to the proceeding. The grounds on which the reference has been made by the learned Sessions Judge are all questions of facts and they are as follows: -1. That there was a misdescription of the land in dispute.2. That the impugned order of the learned Magistrate directing removal of wooden structures from the land belonging to the Second Party was an order without jurisdiction inasmuch as it was only the Civil Court who had jurisdiction to make such an order.3. That the learned Magistrate committed error in directing that a passage should be left by the southern boundary of the land for the use of the Second Party.4. That the learned Magistrate tailed to consider the evidence of the Lot Mandal rel...

Dhanbar Ali and ors. Vs. Haripada Saha

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1976CriLJ1924

ORDERK. Lahiri, J.1. This is a Criminal Reference under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code directed against an order dated 14-7-1973 passed by Shri B. K. Das, Magistrate. 1st Class in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code finally disposing of the case in favour of the First party to the proceeding. The grounds on which the reference has been made by the learned Sessions Judge are all questions of facts and they are as follows: -1. That there was a misdescription of the land in dispute.2. That the impugned order of the learned Magistrate directing removal of wooden structures from the land belonging to the Second Party was an order without jurisdiction inasmuch as it was only the Civil Court who had jurisdiction to make such an order.3. That the learned Magistrate committed error in directing that a passage should be left by the southern boundary of the land for the use of the Second Party.4. That the learned Magistrate tailed to consider the evidence of ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Banshidhar Sewbhagawan and Co.

Court: Guwahati

Pathak, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'. The following question of law has been referred: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct, on a proper interpretation of the term's of the lease deed dated March 23, 1961, and the agreement dated April 6, 1961, in holding that the payment made by the assessee represented revenue expen-diture and, as such, in allowing the assessee's claim to the tune of Rs. 6,750 only ' 2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows : The case relates to the assessment year 1962-63. The assessee took lease of the Ahmeddy Tea Estate by a deed of lease dated March 23, 1961, for a period of 22 years beginning from January 1, 1961. The total payment to be made during the period of 22 years is Rs. 1,48,499. Rs the lessors had some liabilities t...